|
Gazpacho posted:Counterpoint: Trickle down works, as you can see here when Daisy weeps with gratitude. Thanks for this. Saving for later. 
BlueBlazer fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Oct 8, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
I hope Gary hates himself into a heart attack like Bill Leak did, jesus christ. edit: also I approve of the posting of cute animals as reminders that there's good in the world let's keep doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Does anyone have that cartoon where a bunch of dems are silently watching a meter for popularity of some policy and then scramble over themselves to declare support after it reaches 60ish Googling pops up nothing related, just conservative shitheads like Branco E: Thanks man vvvvvv Jackard fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Does anyone have that cartoon where a bunch of dems are silently watching a meter for popularity of some policy and then scramble over themselves to declare support after it reaches 60ish Bors on Gay Marriage support. Phone posting so imgur is being a dick for me 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Does anyone have that cartoon where a bunch of dems are silently watching a meter for popularity of some policy and then scramble over themselves to declare support after it reaches 60ish 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
It's basically 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:It's basically This cartoon was deemed so racist by Australian standards-- Australia, the country with literal concentration camps for illegal immigrants-- that it resulted in a full-blown parliamentary human rights inquiry. What do you want to bet Gary doesn't even lose any papers over this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
When I see this it occurs to me that I don't know, from a political philosophy perspective, if it's better as a representative to wait for your constituents to decide what is right and then do it, or do what you think is right immediately and spend the rest of the time convincing your constituents that you made the right decision? It's easy to call the former cowardly but is that how scholars of it think about it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Ya know.... He and his brother have a daily strip - The Flying McCoys. Wonder how many newspaper editors are aware of this side of them? Sure would be interesting to email that toon to your local paper that carries them. Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:When I see this it occurs to me that I don't know, from a political philosophy perspective, if it's better as a representative to wait for your constituents to decide what is right and then do it, or do what you think is right immediately and spend the rest of the time convincing your constituents that you made the right decision? It's easy to call the former cowardly but is that how scholars of it think about it? That's something political philosophers have been debating for centuries. Read up on the delegate and trustee models of representation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:It's basically Wasn't there an edit of that cartoon referring to Leak himself when he died?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
It was by his son, too, iirc
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
We should tell Glenn that his idiot no-talent brother is loving up their deniability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Pakled posted:That's something political philosophers have been debating for centuries. Read up on the delegate and trustee models of representation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
The tags on the website that hosts it somehow makes it even MORE racist. Cagle Cartoons posted:TAGS: Fathers,Absentee Fathers,Inner City Crime,Drug Dealers,Black Lives Matter,Kids Without Dads,Black Community,Gang Violence,Black on Black Crime,Police Shootings,Anthony Lamar Smith,Heroin,Jason Stockley,Unwed Mothers,Single Black Mothers
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:How much are boner pills without insurance Haha, as if it's something you need to worry about. ... wait
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:When I see this it occurs to me that I don't know, from a political philosophy perspective, if it's better as a representative to wait for your constituents to decide what is right and then do it, or do what you think is right immediately and spend the rest of the time convincing your constituents that you made the right decision? It's easy to call the former cowardly but is that how scholars of it think about it? This cartoon isn't even saying that, it's just being cynical for the sake of being cynical. Marriage equality had become mainstream, but I still want to show I'm better than them because I was for it before it was cool. He's being a political hipster and attacking people for only joining the right side of history once it was more acceptable rather than when that support would have helped elect Republicans by standing for something unpopular and then losing the popularity contest we call elections. He wants to say that even though we all agree now, he was there first and so that makes him, an unelected individual, more important. It's one of his more Ted Rall moments. He can't just call a win a win, he also has to poo poo on his team for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:This cartoon isn't even saying that, it's just being cynical for the sake of being cynical. Marriage equality had become mainstream, but I still want to show I'm better than them because I was for it before it was cool. He's being a political hipster and attacking people for only joining the right side of history once it was more acceptable rather than when that support would have helped elect Republicans by standing for something unpopular and then losing the popularity contest we call elections. He wants to say that even though we all agree now, he was there first and so that makes him, an unelected individual, more important. I know that ideals and morals are soo 2008, but this post made me physically unwell. I mean I'm used to callous media personalities and politicians treating politics like a game, but to see it repeated on a comparatively left-leaning forum like this is depressing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Wasn't there an edit of that cartoon referring to Leak himself when he died? Hello Meow posted:It was by his son, too, iirc  And some of Bill's own variations on it (the first one was his initial response to people calling him out for the racism of the original, also there might be more of these that I'm not aware of):    And to finish, here's this wonderful thing by Leslie Rice, who's an artist of some renown and doesn't appear to have ever done any other editorial cartoons: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:10
|
|
tyblazitar posted:I know that ideals and morals are soo 2008, but this post made me physically unwell. I mean I'm used to callous media personalities and politicians treating politics like a game, but to see it repeated on a comparatively left-leaning forum like this is depressing. You can't get legislation passed without getting enough votes, if openly supporting something is counterproductive to that goal it would be foolish to do so. Like it or not passing legislation is a game, any rule structure with a winning condition is a game, your disagreement is with the world, not with those telling you how it works.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
This is inspired.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Wow, the cops killed that kid's dad when he was so young he can't even remember him. A tragic cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/dril/status/841892608788041732?lang=en
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:This cartoon isn't even saying that, it's just being cynical for the sake of being cynical. Marriage equality had become mainstream, but I still want to show I'm better than them because I was for it before it was cool. He's being a political hipster and attacking people for only joining the right side of history once it was more acceptable rather than when that support would have helped elect Republicans by standing for something unpopular and then losing the popularity contest we call elections. He wants to say that even though we all agree now, he was there first and so that makes him, an unelected individual, more important. Not long ago, Bors reposted that cartoon with a caption saying “this, but for single-payer.” Which isn’t wrong, per se, but the same criticisms apply.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
tyblazitar posted:I know that ideals and morals are soo 2008, but this post made me physically unwell. I mean I'm used to callous media personalities and politicians treating politics like a game, but to see it repeated on a comparatively left-leaning forum like this is depressing. I too remember when MLK screamed at people who supported him for not supporting him sooner, and told them to get hosed. This attitude, that purity is always more important than success, is something hugely emblematic of people whose support of issues is far more to do with self image than actually making anything better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I too remember when MLK screamed at people who supported him for not supporting him sooner, and told them to get hosed. I remember when he castigated moderates for saying it just wasn't the right time for civil rights. Realistically it there has to be a trade-off between purist and pragmatists for things to actually progress. Yeah, we know that if you never compromise and hold everyone to an absolute standard then nothing gets done because you runoff everyone that you need to sway. But on the other side, if you don't have purists holding up a standard and pushing back when people cave on it, then you end up compromising too much. Borrs hasn't built a career on deliberate contrarianism, so if he wants to put out the occasional "welcome to the bandwagon" snarky cartoon, he's earned it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
there wolf posted:I remember when he castigated moderates for saying it just wasn't the right time for civil rights. You do understand the difference between past and present, right? MLK criticized people who held those views as he wrote those words, in his present. He intended to change minds. This is criticizing people who held opinions in the past. Either he intends to get people to change their minds, or he's just jerking off. Also, this is the exact polar opposite of pushing back when people cave. This is pushing back when people cave to your position. So again, you either want them to change back, or it's pure self congratulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I think it's more about making GBS threads on political opportunists who don't give a poo poo one way or the other, but now that it's seen as the right thing to do, they're acting like they support it and have always supported it. On the one hand, I can understand being frustrated with people who are only supporting you because it is politically expedient, especially when they were looking the other way (or worse!) for years. On the other hand, support is support, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Better "I am supporting gay marriage because the polls tell me it looks good" than "I am opposing gay marriage because Jesus."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
getting angry at the politicians is pointless anyway. if you need to be angry at someone, be angry at the people that didn't support you. You're never going to get the politicians on your side on an unpopular issue, at least not without a lot of bribery. Voting against the will of your constituents isn't a great career move.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do understand the difference between past and present, right? MLK criticized people who held those views as he wrote those words, in his present. He intended to change minds. This is criticizing people who held opinions in the past. Either he intends to get people to change their minds, or he's just jerking off. Opinions they held onto out of a desire to maintain a status quo, and only changed when polling showed a new status quo. Borrs is just reminding you that settling for the status quo is cowardly and not the actions of a good friend, which is really only controversial to the people who don't want that to be true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Hey, guess which people don’t dwell on these moral quandaries? Right-wing voters. They don’t give a gently caress about what their politicians used to believe, or even if these positions are completely hypocritical to how they actually live their lives. All they care about is that their politicians are saying what they want to hear. They don’t even seem to give a gently caress if they vote in complete contrast to their positions! As long as they blatantly lie and say “actually, this bill that’s going to kill a bunch of people isn’t going to kill a bunch of people,” their voters cheer them on
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
there wolf posted:Opinions they held onto out of a desire to maintain a status quo, and only changed when polling showed a new status quo. Borrs is just reminding you that settling for the status quo is cowardly and not the actions of a good friend, which is really only controversial to the people who don't want that to be true. They by definition did not settle for the status quo since they changed their opinions. So, again, it's purely jerking off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do understand the difference between past and present, right? MLK criticized people who held those views as he wrote those words, in his present. He intended to change minds. This is criticizing people who held opinions in the past. Either he intends to get people to change their minds, or he's just jerking off. And generally people start to get distrustful of political windvanes, and respect the ones that dont treat people like idiots by saying they were always for it before it got popular, and actually acknowledge their shortcomings. But apparently thats a big no-no in brokebrained political campaigner thought, gotta double down, you were never wrong and are wildly spinning like a top in a hurricane. What im trying to say is theres a worrying tendency for politicians to go "nope nope cant be done sorry never will happen be realistic" until it passes a magical threshold of open public support then it automagically becomes entirely possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:And generally people start to get distrustful of political windvanes, and respect the ones that dont treat people like idiots by saying they were always for it before it got popular, and actually acknowledge their shortcomings. So what you want to tell politicians is to never, ever change your mind or get swayed by the argument. Fight forever to defend your original position, because if you ever get convinced, like a sane and reasonable person, that makes you a weathervane. Once again, it's just about being a hipster and bragging that you were into it before it was popular. Also, trying to shove something the public is vehemently against down their throats is impossible, you idiot. The GOP just learned that with the repeal BS. If it still had a 72% support, there wouldn't have been a problem. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Of course a politician changing their mind or stance doesnt make them a windvane, and you seem to want no nuance on this matter. Common practice for politicians seems to be to have a against/for stance depending purely on public support, not whether the subject or cause is inarguably beneficial or even benign to the public. Lets take Hillary and gay marriage: publically she was against it, then suddenly she was always for it. Its infantilizing of the public and a very dishonest way to go about it; I respected Obama's approach more. Acknowledgment of faults and accountability are two things that are in heavy shortage in politics, and more of it is never a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Of course a politician changing their mind or stance doesnt make them a windvane, and you seem to want no nuance on this matter. Common practice for politicians seems to be to have a against/for stance depending purely on public support, not whether the subject or cause is inarguably beneficial or even benign to the public. Obama's approach was to get backed into a corner by Joe Biden, and then just say he evolved. Also, when did she ever claim she had always supported gay marriage? She gave the exact same answer as Obama. But, because it's her, it's of course entirely different and not acceptable. Also, the last election proved that America loving despises acknowledgement of faults and accountability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Why is Bernie Sanders accepting the Nobel Prize and who is the dude handing them out? For reference:  Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN and presumably the person who will accept the actual award.  Last year's award ceremony: leader of the Nobel Committee Berit Reiss-Andersen hands the diploma and medal to Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos. She is still the leader and will most likely hand out this year's award as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:33
|
|
